The following statement was included in a letter of Ross and Liddell company, whose primary business is to act as a factor of tenement properties in Scotland
"I must repeat myself in saying that indeed property in Scotland is governed by a Deed of Conditions which were initially drawn up when the building was erected. Albeit this was a number of years ago until such times as the government introduce some sort of new legislation to alter this, as Managing Agents we are obliged to abide by them and enforce their conditions upon proprietors."
And the building(s) in question tenement flats and the year most of them were erected is the 1900s or maybe the twilight years of 19th century. On the grounds of this legislation, Ross and Liddell, which presumably has acted as factor since then, has been charging proprietors buildings insurance premiums, against the will and the freedom of proprietors to choose from where to buy a service product.
Of course someone can not ignore the fact that the buildings insurance is a modern product of the insurance industry and certainly not as old as some of the tenements, as well as the legislation they quote, to justify their action, which makes their claim dubious. However, that is not the point I want to make.
What is disconcerting is the appeal of the author of the letter, an employee of Ross and Liddell, that this action constitutes a legal and binding process as the paragraph below states.
"As you will be aware, property in Scotland is governed by a Deed of Conditions, being a legal and binding document drawn up when the building was erected."
What is the value of the expression 'legal and binding?'
Legal to what avail, binding for what purpose? The only legal 'legal' aspect there is, is what promotes and fosters unity and trust among the individuals in a society. In what sense legislation, like what Ross and Liddell abides to, where its main goal is to protect the businesses at the expense of the individuals that seek their services, promotes and fosters unity in a society? Business-centered government instead of people-centered?
By looking in any old history books, in search for the origins of the modern states, the only or main reason that governments were brought into existence, was to guarantee the contracts, for merchants, banks, landowners and any other such individuals. And still is.
If not all the legislation at least a great part, if not all modern states at least a great many, its or their sole or primary objective is about protecting the integrity of the contract, its their cornerstone of their existence.
Guaranteeing contracts, meaning securing the profits for business, at the expense of the services provided to individuals. Services as a public good for individuals to enjoy. The contract elevated to a point where it is disjointed from the service is supposed to provide. Becoming the goal and not the means in the service provision, to the point that legislation prescribes that it needs to go on, despite and against whether the service is required any longer. Individuals forced to adhere to contracts by the 'legal and binding legislation' even if they have no use of the service the contract is for, to fork out money for a service they cease to be interested in.
Strict adherence to contracts enable businesses to extort monies from individuals without providing any service. Monies milked out of individuals with nothing in return. No more no less, business and those involved in them, are nothing but parasites. Any growth in the business or the economy at large is parasitic growth. A kind of growth detrimental to the health of a society, and is anything but 'binding'.
Contracts should be based on mutual trust between the parties engaged and in service of the service provided, otherwise it will continue to breed parasites and harm the social fibre of the society.
Talk about democracy, governments of states elected by the people for the people. Anything but. Politicians should change their scope of governing. Aim towards providing a people-centred government. If Mr Brown, and other politicians wonder about the persistent indifference of individuals in politics should seek their answers there.
Businesses can still survive amidst a climate where the service they provide is a priority, instead of the profits they will amass in their coffers. A penny more, in anyone's pocket, worths nothing if it is not given freely by a satisfied customer.
If businesses do not adapt, they simply should not exist.
